|
|
|
|
Third Mithridatic War
|
| |
|
| |
The Third Mithridatic War (73-63 BC) was the last and longest of three Mithridatic Wars fought between Mithridates VI of Pontus and the Roman Republic. The Romans won the war, and Mithridates committed suicide, ending the menace of Pontus and conquering the Armenian kingdom.
One of the greatest struggles in Roman history, eclipsed only in magnitude, duration and seriousness by the First and Second Punic Wars, and when full attention is given to the strategic situation of the Empire at the time it is clear that in this war period Rome passed through a fundamental crisis with the potential to bring down the entire edifice of the empire.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Third Mithridatic War' Start a new discussion about 'Third Mithridatic War' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
The Third Mithridatic War (73-63 BC) was the last and longest of three Mithridatic Wars fought between Mithridates VI of Pontus and the Roman Republic. The Romans won the war, and Mithridates committed suicide, ending the menace of Pontus and conquering the Armenian kingdom.
One of the greatest struggles in Roman history, eclipsed only in magnitude, duration and seriousness by the First and Second Punic Wars, and when full attention is given to the strategic situation of the Empire at the time it is clear that in this war period Rome passed through a fundamental crisis with the potential to bring down the entire edifice of the empire. By the same token just as Roman victory in the Punic Wars had catapaulted her to a position of eminence in the Mediterranean world, so too the style and geographic extent of this victory demonstrated that Roman arms could not be stopped and were destined to conquer the entire world. That this destiny was not fulfilled was the result of the renewal of Roman internal conflicts from the 50s BC, and the overthrow of the conquering Republican state by the enfeebled dominion of the Caesars. But in the 70s and 60s BC when Lucullus annihilated élite eastern armies ten times the size of his own in their homelands, and Pompey marched to the western shores of the Caspian Sea and into Palestine, such a destiny must have seemed beyond the power of men to remedy.
Contemporary wars
The true significance of the Third Mithridatic War can only properly be understood in context of the other contemporary and vast military commitments of the Roman state, any one of which might have turned into a disaster if mismanaged. The Pontic king's decision to abandon attempts at diplomatic appeasement with Rome and to attempt to forge an alliance with Sertorius (77 BC) belongs in this context.
Gallic Wars 78-72 BC
Sertorian War in Spain, 80-72 BC
Roman wars of conquest in the Balkans, Dardania, Thrace and Moesia to the Danube, 76-72 BC
Piracy wars at sea, from Spain to Syria, 75-66 BC
Slave War of Spartacus, 73-71 BC
For the sake of convenience, most of the period between the Second and Third wars of Rome and the Pontic Kingdom is discussed under the Second Mithridatic War of 83-82 BC, which was relatively minor and brief. There it can be seen how the long piracy wars were a development out of the First Mithridatic War and especially of the alliance between Mithridates VI and Sertorius, which in joining those two mighty threats into a unity much larger than its parts had the serious potential of overturning Roman power.
It is a curious side issue of Roman history, often overlooked under the weight and famous extent of Ciceronian propaganda in the Verrine Orations, that one of the men at the epicentre of this maelstrom and whose decisions and actions were crucial to preventing proper coordination of the Sertorian and Pontic war efforts was Gaius Verres, commander of Sicily province for the triennium 73-70 BC, coincident with the first three years of the Third Mithridatic War. Besides being a notorious crook and thief, Verres was a bold and talented soldier (vir militaris), and his decisive and ruthless conduct at this time contributed as much as anyone else to the salvation and stabilization of the Roman empire. This is why the decision-makers of the time were prepared to extend his command for three years (rather than confining it to the normal one), despite his maladministration exposed by Cicero in such elaborate detail.
Final Preparations for the Third War
From the forging of the Sertorian alliance to the outbreak, 75-73 BC.
Commencement date of the Third War
The date of the outbreak of the Third Mithridatic War was one of the most controversial chronological issues in Roman history, right up until the 1980s. The single longest note in Robert Broughton's famous reference text on the Roman magistrates and provincial commands was devoted to this problem. Broughton decided for 74 BC (while admitting the uncertainties), in line with the bulk of the evidence and majority scholarly opinion. But a significant body of experts preferred 73 and could cite in its favour less quantity but better quality evidence. This question affected the whole chronological arrangement of the initial years of the war until the completion of the Roman conquest of the Pontic kingdom in Anatolia and the flight of Mithridates VI to Armenia in 71 BC.
But a compelling resolution was finally found in previously overlooked contemporary references in Cicero's speech pro Cluentio which prove that Lucullus was still in Rome as consul combating the agitating tribune Lucius Quinctius in the final weeks of the latter's office which ended on (pre-Julian) 9 December, or according to current best modelling about Julian December 2, 74 BC. The year of Lucullus and Marcus Aurelius Cotta ended only 19 days later on the contemporary calendar date 29 December, or about Julian December 21, 74 BC. So it is now plain that the opening movements and operations described by the ancient texts prior to the first winter of the war cannot have taken place in Lucullus' consulate and must belong to the following year.
Thus many modern accounts of the early stages of the war, otherwise high quality in many respects, are vitiated by the dating error and must be used with great caution, or not at all. Most of the following description is based on David Magie's excellent 1950 account in RRAM (see below, Modern works: Major Studies). His preference for the 73 BC initiation date has now been vindicated.
Forces and initial deployments, 74-73 BC
Launching an attack at the same time as a revolt by Sertorius swept through the Spanish provinces, Mithridates was initially virtually unopposed. The Senate acted, by sending the consul Lucius Licinius Lucullus to deal with the Pontic threat. The only other reliable general, Pompey, was in Gaul, marching to Hispania to help crush the revolt led by Sertorius.
Opening operations to November 73 BC
Upon his arrival, Lucullus met up with several legions, which had been campaigning in Asia Minor,
The Siege of Kyzikos through winter 73-72 BC
Lucullus' army blocks supply routes.
Raising of the Siege to the Nikomedeia Conference
Lucullus' defeat of evacuating Pontic forces by land and sea, first battle of Tenedos
Lucullus, Cotta and Triarius confer at Nikomedeia.
Herakleia and the Invasion of Pontus
First Roman - Armenian War
In 69 BC Lucullus led a campaign into Armenia against Tigranes II, Mithridates' son-in-law and ally, to whom Mithridates had fled after Cabeira. He began a siege of the new Armenian imperial capital of Tigranocerta in the Arzenene district. Tigranes returned from mopping up a Seleukid rebellion in Syria with his main host, which Lucullus annihilated despite odds of about ten to one against an army apparently unbeaten for more than twenty years. This was the famous battle of Tigranocerta. It was fought on the same (pre-Julian) calendar date as the Roman disaster at Arausio 36 years earlier, the day before the Nones of October according to the reckoning of the time (or October 6), which is Julian October 16, 69 BC.. Tigranes retired to the northern regions of his kingdom to gather another army and defend his hereditary capital of Artaxata, while Lucullus moved off south-eastwards to the kingdom of the Kurds (Korduene) on the frontiers of the Armenian and Parthian empires. During the winter of 69-68 BC both sides opened negotiations with the Parthian king, Arsakes XVI, who was presently defending himself against a major onslaught from his rival Frahates III coming from Bactria and the far east.
In the summer of 68 BC Lucullus marched against Tigranes and crossed the Anti-Taurus range heading for the old Armenian capital Artaxata. Once again Tigranes was provoked to attack and in a major battle at the Arsanias River Lucullus once again routed the Armenian army. But he had left this campaign too late in the year and when the wintry season came on early in the Armenian Tablelands his troops mutinied, refusing to go further, and he was forced to withdraw southwards back into Arzenene. From there he proceeded back down through Korduene into old Assyria and in the late auutmn and early winter besieged and took Nisibis, the main Armenian fortress city in Northern Mesopotamia.
During the winter of 68-67 BC at Nisibis, his authority over his army was more seriously undermined by the efforts of his young brother-in-law Publius Clodius Pulcher, apparently acting in the interests and pay of Pompey Magnus, who was eager to succeed Lucullus in the eastern command. This allowed Mithridates and Tigranes to retake much of their respective kingdoms.
Roman machinations, Resurgence of the Eastern Kings, 67 BC
Mithridates destroys Triarius' army at Zela and reclaims most of his kingdom.
The bizarre stand-off when Lucullus' army refused to fight and became a rabble, while the Pontic King was too frightened of Lucullus to dare to attack him.
On the operations of Pompeius against Cilician pirates,
The march of Q. Marcius Rex through Cilicia province and out the other side, advancing all the way to Syrian Antioch. He must have been co-operating with Pompeius, but certainly ignored the Mithridatic War, despite appeals from Lucullus to march north and get involved.
The bizarre inactivity of the consul Acilius Glabrio in Bithynia.
Ancient sources
- FHG = Karl Müller (ed.) Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum
- FGrH = Felix Jacoby (ed. & critical commentary) , Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (commenced 1923)
- Memnon of Herakleia Pontike, 9th century epitome in the ??????T??? of Photius of Byzantium (codex 224)
- ed. René Henry Photius Bibliotheque Tome IV: Codices 223-229 (Association Guillaume Budé, Paris, 1965), pp.48-99: Greek text with French translation
- ed. K. Müller FHG III, 525: Greek text with Latin translation
- ed. F. Jacoby FGrH no.434: Greek text, detailed commentary in German
- Phlegon of Tralles fragmenta
- ed. K. Müller FHG III, 602ff.
- ed. F. Jacoby FGrH no.257
- English translations and commentary by William Hansen, Phlegon of Tralles' Book of Marvels (University of Exeter Press, 1996)
Modern works
Abbreviations
RE = Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, eds. Pauly, Wissowa, Kroll
Major studies.
- Eckhardt, Kurt. "Die armenischen Feldzüge des Lukullus",
I. Introduction. Klio, 9 (1909), 400-412
II. Das Kriegsjahr 69. Klio, 10 (1910), 72-115
III. Das Kriegsjahr 68. Klio, 10 (1910), 192-231
- Gelzer, Matthias: "L. Licinius Lucullus cos.74", RE vol.XIII (1926), s. v. Licinius no.104, colls.376-414.
- Magie, David: Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Century after Christ 2 vols. (Princeton University Press, 1950)
- Van Ooteghem, J: Lucius Licinius Lucullus, (Brussels, 1959)
- Keaveney, Arthur: Lucullus. A Life. (London/New York: Routledge, 1992). ISBN 0-415-03219-9.
Shorter articles.
- Anderson, J G C: "Pompey's Campaign against Mithradates", JRS 12 (1922), 99ff.
- Downey, Glanville: "Q. Marcius Rex at Antioch", Classical Philology 32 (1937), 144-151
- Bennett, William H: "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin", Historia, 10 (1961), 459-72
- McGing, B C: "The Date of the outbreak of the Third Mithridatic War", Phoenix, 38 (1984), 12-18
- Williams, Richard S: "The Appointment of Glabrio (COS.67) to the Eastern Command", Phoenix 38 (1984), 221-234
- Tatum, W J: "Lucullus and Clodius at Nisibis (Plutarch, Lucullus 33-34)", Athenaeum, 79 (1991)
See also
|
| |
|
|
